AC Coach Attendants Are Entitled to Overtime Wages Upon Establishing Qualifying Duty Beyond Prescribed Hours.

The respondents, railway employees working as AC Coach Attendants, claimed overtime allowances/wages, relying on earlier decisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, upheld by the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court.

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, allowed their claim in OA No. 154 of 2023 by order dated 25 September 2025.

The Union of India challenged that order, arguing that the Tribunal had failed to give effect to Railway Board Circular RBE No. 157/1985 dated 27 June 1985, which addressed duty-hour calculations and overtime credit for AC Coach Attendants and In-charges.

The respondents relied on the Chhattisgarh High Court’s decision in South East Central Railway & Others v. Nazir Ahmed, W.P.(S) No. 4098 of 2018, which had considered the same circular.

Whether the Tribunal erred in holding the respondents entitled to overtime allowances/wages despite Railway Board Circular RBE No. 157/1985 dated 27 June 1985.

Whether the respondents’ entitlement to overtime allowances/wages was governed by the principles applied in the earlier decisions concerning AC Coach Attendants.

The Court relied on the decisions concerning overtime claims by AC Coach Attendants, including the Bombay Bench Tribunal’s decision in OA No. 117 of 2008, which had been upheld on challenge, and its own decision in South East Central Railway & Others v. Nazir Ahmed, W.P.(S) No. 4098 of 2018.

In Nazir Ahmed, the Court considered Railway Board Circular RBE No. 157/1985 and held that entitlement to overtime is not excluded by the circular; an employee must, however, establish before the employer that the circumstances of the claim satisfy the applicable conditions.

The Union’s objection that the Tribunal had overlooked the 1985 circular did not warrant setting aside its order.

The High Court noted that the circular had been considered in the impugned order and that the Court had previously addressed its effect in Nazir Ahmed.

Applying that precedent, the Court found no basis to distinguish the respondents’ claims or to conclude that the circular defeated their entitlement.

It therefore held that the Tribunal had committed no error in allowing the claim.

The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.